pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04633 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

A spectroscopic map of the Galactic centre: Integrated light and dynamical modelling

A. Feldmeier-Krause , T. I. Maindl , G. van den Ven , S. Thater , P. Jethwa , I. Breda This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Galactic centrenuclear star clustersupermassive black holedynamical modellingorbit-based modellingstellar kinematicsintegrated light
0
0 comments X

The pith

Triaxial orbit modelling of integrated-light kinematic maps recovers the mass of the Milky Way's central black hole.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether dynamical modelling techniques developed for external galaxies can be applied to the centre of the Milky Way using only integrated light observations. By extracting stellar line-of-sight velocity maps across a wide region around the nuclear star cluster and supermassive black hole Sgr A*, the authors fit an orbit library in a triaxial potential. This approach recovers the known mass of Sgr A* and produces stellar mass distributions consistent with earlier work based on individual stars, though with larger uncertainties. The modelling reveals that inner stellar orbits are mostly warm or hot while outer ones are colder and more rotationally supported.

Core claim

We recover the correct mass of Sgr A*, and our stellar mass distributions are in agreement with the literature, albeit with larger uncertainties. The stellar structures are at most mildly triaxial and close to oblate. The stellar orbit distribution in the inner region is dominated by dynamically warm and hot orbits. At larger scales, dynamically cold, that is, highly rotating orbits, have the largest weights.

What carries the argument

The DYNAMITE code, which calculates an orbit library in a given gravitational potential and computes model kinematic maps that are compared to observed line-of-sight velocity maps to constrain the potential and orbit distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The gravitational potential is assumed to be time-independent and the observed kinematics can be reproduced by a steady-state orbit library in a triaxial potential.

What would settle it

An independent high-precision measurement of the mass within the inner few parsecs that deviates significantly from the modelled black hole plus stellar mass profile would challenge the results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04633 by A. Feldmeier-Krause, G. van den Ven, I. Breda, P. Jethwa, S. Thater, T. I. Maindl.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spatial coverage of our F2 spectroscopic data. The data extend ∼66 pc along the Galactic longitude l, centred on Sgr A⋆ (marked as a red plus symbol), and ∼1 pc to the Galactic north and south, except for the centre region, which extends further to the Galactic north (∼2 pc). The image was constructed from the spectroscopic scans. We show the Galactic coordinate grid as dashed lines. stars with H − KS ≤ 1.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example of a stellar kinematic fit with ppxf. The black line shows the data, the red line the best-fit stellar model, and the orange and pink lines the best-fit gas emission. Green symbols denote residuals; the grey shaded regions were masked in the fit due to sky residuals or bad pixels. spatial information. A lower target S/N produces a finer spatial binning, but at the cost of noisier kinematic maps. We… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Stellar kinematic maps (left) after symmetrisation and their respective uncertainties (right). The plots show, from top to bottom, VLOS, σLOS, h3, and h4. rameters qmin, pmin, umin, and Υ thus describe the stellar gravita￾tional potential. 3.1.3. Dark matter In a subset of models, we included a spherical DM compo￾nent. The DM distribution is parameterised with a Navarro￾Frenk-White (NFW Navarro et al. 1996… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of observations (left in rotated image), the best-fit model (middle, no DM), and the residuals (right). The rows show, from top to bottom: stellar flux, VLOS, σLOS, h3, and h4. Article number, page 6 of 16 view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Intrinsic shape parameters and triaxiality as a function of radius r. The black lines denote q = c/a, blue lines p = b/a, and red lines triaxiality T = (1 − p 2 )/(1 − q 2 ). Solid lines denote the best-fit model parameters, the dashed coloured lines their 1σ uncertainties. The verti￾cal solid line denotes 1 Re of the NSC, the dotted line the outer limit of the kinematic data. Horizontal lines mark steps of 0.1 view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Total enclosed mass as a function of spherical deprojected radius. Shaded regions show 1σ uncertainties. The vertical solid line denotes 1 Re of the NSC, the dotted line the outer limit of the kinematic data. without DM. This is because the best-fit DM mass is more than five orders of magnitude lower than the total mass. For compar￾ison, we also show the stellar mass profiles from other studies, and we wil… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Orbit circularity distribution of λz as a function of mean orbital radius r, computed using over >800 models within 1σ. Colour indicates the orbit density in the phase space, horizontal dashed lines divide the orbits into cold (λz>0.8), warm (0.25<λz ≤0.8), hot (−0.25<λz ≤0.25), counter-rotating warm (–0.8<λz ≤ −0.2), and counter-rotating cold (λz ≤-0.8) orbits, vertical lines are as in view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relative orbit weight profile as function of mean orbital radius r, computed from the λz distribution in view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Orbit decomposition of the best-fit model in cold, warm, counter￾rotating (cr) cold, cr warm, hot, and all orbits. The rows show, from left to right: stellar surface brightness, VLOS, σLOS. Feldmeier-Krause et al. (2017b) are limited to l ≲ 6 pc. The mod￾els of Sormani et al. (2022) are focused on the more extended NSD. At l ≲ 20 pc, their sample is rather small, as their data lies mostly at larger distanc… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The centre of the Milky Way is occupied by a nuclear star cluster, which contains the supermassive black hole Sgr A*. The cluster is embedded in the larger surrounding nuclear stellar disc. These three components dominate the mass budget of the Galactic centre at different radial scales. The mass distribution of the Galactic centre has been studied extensively using observations of individual bright stars and various dynamical modelling approaches. The situation differs for external galaxies, where observations are often limited to the integrated line-of-sight kinematics. For such systems, triaxial orbit-based dynamical modelling has become a standard method to derive mass distributions and stellar orbit distributions. We aim to apply and test this method on the Galactic centre. We extract stellar line-of-sight kinematic maps of the inner ~3 pc x 66 pc region of the Galactic centre. We use the DYNAMITE code, which calculates an orbit library in a given gravitational potential and computes model kinematic maps. These maps are then compared to the observed kinematic maps, and the gravitational potential and orbit distribution of the Galactic centre are constrained. We recover the correct mass of Sgr A*, and our stellar mass distributions are in agreement with the literature, albeit with larger uncertainties. The stellar structures are at most mildly triaxial and close to oblate. The stellar orbit distribution in the inner region is dominated by dynamically warm and hot orbits. At larger scales, dynamically cold, that is, highly rotating orbits, have the largest weights. The dominance of hot and warm orbits is a consequence of short dynamical timescales in the inner Galactic centre, causing dynamical heating. The presence of cold orbits at large radii may be explained by the longer heating timescales in this region, and if the stars in the outer nuclear stellar disc are younger.[abridged]

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper extracts stellar line-of-sight kinematic maps over the inner ~3 pc × 66 pc of the Galactic centre and applies the DYNAMITE triaxial orbit-superposition code to fit a gravitational potential (including Sgr A* mass) and orbit weights to the observed maps. It reports recovering the accepted Sgr A* mass, obtaining stellar mass profiles consistent with the literature (with larger uncertainties), finding the stellar structures to be at most mildly triaxial and near-oblate, and showing that hot/warm orbits dominate inside ~few pc while cold, rotating orbits gain weight at larger radii, which the authors attribute to local dynamical timescales.

Significance. If the results hold, the work provides a useful end-to-end validation of integrated-light triaxial orbit modelling on a system where independent constraints from individual stars exist. Successful recovery of the known Sgr A* mass and consistency of the stellar mass distribution (despite the expected increase in uncertainty) supports the reliability of the method for external galaxies. The orbit-type analysis and explicit discussion of dynamical heating timescales add physical context that is directly testable in the Milky Way.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (modelling results): the central claim that the recovered Sgr A* mass 'matches the known value' and stellar masses 'agree with the literature' is presented without any reported goodness-of-fit statistic (e.g., reduced χ², residual maps, or posterior widths), parameter uncertainties, or mock-data recovery tests. This information is load-bearing for assessing whether the modelling actually constrains the potential or merely reproduces the data by construction.
  2. [§3–4] §3–4 (orbit library and potential): the modelling assumes a time-independent triaxial potential and a steady-state orbit library whose parameters are adjusted to fit the data. While standard, the short dynamical times in the inner region (explicitly mentioned in the abstract) require an explicit test that the recovered orbit distribution is not an artifact of the steady-state assumption; no such test is described.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract is labelled 'abridged'; the full version should retain the quantitative statements about mass recovery and uncertainties rather than deferring them entirely to the main text.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels for the kinematic maps should explicitly state the spatial scale, velocity range, and whether the maps are luminosity-weighted or mass-weighted.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the work and the recommendation for minor revision. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and transparency.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (modelling results): the central claim that the recovered Sgr A* mass 'matches the known value' and stellar masses 'agree with the literature' is presented without any reported goodness-of-fit statistic (e.g., reduced χ², residual maps, or posterior widths), parameter uncertainties, or mock-data recovery tests. This information is load-bearing for assessing whether the modelling actually constrains the potential or merely reproduces the data by construction.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for greater transparency in the presentation of the modelling results. In the revised manuscript we will add the reduced χ² value of the best-fit model to §4, include residual maps comparing the observed and modelled kinematic maps, and explicitly report the posterior widths on the Sgr A* mass and the stellar mass parameters. We will also include a concise description of the mock-data recovery tests performed to validate that the modelling pipeline recovers the input potential parameters. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3–4] §3–4 (orbit library and potential): the modelling assumes a time-independent triaxial potential and a steady-state orbit library whose parameters are adjusted to fit the data. While standard, the short dynamical times in the inner region (explicitly mentioned in the abstract) require an explicit test that the recovered orbit distribution is not an artifact of the steady-state assumption; no such test is described.

    Authors: We agree that the short dynamical timescales in the inner Galactic centre make the steady-state assumption particularly relevant. The DYNAMITE modelling follows the standard orbit-superposition framework, which is time-independent by construction. In the revised §4 we will expand the discussion to explicitly address this point, explaining why the recovered orbit distribution is physically plausible given the expected dynamical heating on short timescales and the consistency of the mass recovery with independent constraints. We will also note the absence of a dedicated time-dependent test as a limitation of the present study. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper applies the established DYNAMITE code for triaxial orbit-based dynamical modeling: an orbit library is generated in a parameterized gravitational potential, model kinematic maps are computed, and the potential parameters plus orbit weights are adjusted to match the observed integrated-light kinematic maps. The reported recovery of the accepted Sgr A* mass and agreement (within larger uncertainties) of the stellar mass distribution with independent literature values are direct outputs of this fitting procedure, functioning as a validation test on a known system rather than a self-referential derivation. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs relabeled as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work, or ansatzes smuggled via citation appear in the abstract or described method. The time-independent and steady-state assumptions are the standard ones for the technique and are discussed with reference to local dynamical times.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The modelling rests on a steady-state triaxial potential whose parameters (black-hole mass, stellar density profile, possible dark-matter component) are adjusted to match the data; the orbit library is generated from that potential and the weights are solved by non-negative least squares.

free parameters (2)
  • Sgr A* mass
    Fitted as part of the gravitational potential to reproduce the observed kinematics.
  • stellar density profile parameters
    Multiple parameters describing the nuclear star cluster and nuclear stellar disc are adjusted during the fit.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The system is in dynamical equilibrium and can be described by a time-independent gravitational potential.
    Standard assumption for orbit-superposition modelling; invoked when the orbit library is computed.
  • domain assumption The observed line-of-sight velocity distributions can be reproduced by a linear combination of orbits in the trial potential.
    Core premise of the DYNAMITE method.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5646 in / 1476 out tokens · 38767 ms · 2026-05-08T17:37:05.962097+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2005, Phys

    Alexander, T. 2005, Phys. Rep., 419, 65 Arca Sedda, M., Gualandris, A., Do, T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, L29 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2005

  2. [2]

    1992, MNRAS, 259, 328

    Athanassoula, E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 328

    1992

  3. [3]

    J., Strigari, L

    Barth, A. J., Strigari, L. E., Bentz, M. C., Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1031

    2009

  4. [4]

    2015, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 37, A1111

    Benamou, J.-D., Carlier, G., Cuturi, M., Nenna, L., & Peyré, G. 2015, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 37, A1111

    2015

  5. [5]

    & Bovy, J

    Bennett, M. & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417

    2019

  6. [6]

    A., et al

    Bittner, A., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Gadotti, D. A., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A65

    2020

  7. [7]

    D., Sellgren, K., & Depoy, D

    Blum, R. D., Sellgren, K., & Depoy, D. L. 1996, AJ, 112, 1988

    1996

  8. [8]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 5202 Article number, page 10 of 16 A

    Boecker, A., Neumayer, N., Pillepich, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5202 Article number, page 10 of 16 A. Feldmeier-Krause et al.: A spectroscopic map of the Galactic centre

    2023

  9. [9]

    M., Schödel, R., et al

    Boehle, A., Ghez, A. M., Schödel, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 17

    2016

  10. [10]

    2024, A&A, 692, L10

    Breda, I., van de Ven, G., Thater, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, L10

    2024

  11. [11]

    Tracing the dynamical and structural complexity of spiral galaxy centres

    Breda, I., van de Ven, G., Thater, S., et al. 2026, A&A accepted, arXiv:2604.07297

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    2002, MNRAS, 333, 400

    Cappellari, M. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 400

    2002

  13. [13]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273

    Cappellari, M. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273

    2023

  14. [14]

    & Copin, Y

    Cappellari, M. & Copin, Y . 2003, MNRAS, 342, 345

    2003

  15. [15]

    & Emsellem, E

    Cappellari, M. & Emsellem, E. 2004, PASP, 116, 138

    2004

  16. [16]

    K., van der Marel, R

    Cappellari, M., Verolme, E. K., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2002, ApJ, 578, 787 Chanamé, J., Kleyna, J., & van der Marel, R. 2008, ApJ, 682, 841

    2002

  17. [17]

    K., Gerhard, O., et al

    Chatzopoulos, S., Fritz, T. K., Gerhard, O., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 948

    2015

  18. [18]

    G., & Lind, K

    Conroy, C., Villaume, A., van Dokkum, P. G., & Lind, K. 2018, ApJ, 854, 139

    2018

  19. [19]

    Davidge, T. J. 2020, AJ, 160, 146 den Brok, M., Krajnovi´c, D., Emsellem, E., Brinchmann, J., & Maseda, M. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4786

    2020

  20. [20]

    2019, Science, 365, 664

    Do, T., Hees, A., Ghez, A., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 664

    2019

  21. [21]

    Dutton, A. A. & Macciò, A. V . 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3359

    2014

  22. [22]

    S., Elston, R., Raines, S

    Eikenberry, S. S., Elston, R., Raines, S. N., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye, 1196–1207

    2004

  23. [23]

    1994, A&A, 285, 723

    Emsellem, E., Monnet, G., & Bacon, R. 1994, A&A, 285, 723

    1994

  24. [24]

    2019, A&A, 628, A92 Falcón-Barroso, J

    Fahrion, K., Lyubenova, M., van de Ven, G., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A92 Falcón-Barroso, J. & Martig, M. 2021, A&A, 646, A31

    2019

  25. [25]

    2014, A&A, 570, A2

    Feldmeier, A., Neumayer, N., Seth, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A2

    2014

  26. [26]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 5920

    Feldmeier-Krause, A. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5920

    2022

  27. [27]

    2006, ApJ, 644, L21

    Ferrarese, L., Côté, P., Dalla Bontà, E., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, L21

    2006

  28. [28]

    & Merritt, D

    Ferrarese, L. & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9

    2000

  29. [29]

    Kinematic diagnostics for non-axisymmetry in the Milky Way's nuclear stellar disc

    Fiteni, K., Li, X., Sormani, M. C., et al. 2026, A&A accepted, arXiv:2603.18738

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    2021, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22, 1

    Flamary, R., Courty, N., Gramfort, A., et al. 2021, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22, 1

    2021

  31. [31]

    2024, POT Python Optimal Transport (version 0.9.5)

    Flamary, R., Vincent-Cuaz, C., Courty, N., et al. 2024, POT Python Optimal Transport (version 0.9.5)

    2024

  32. [32]

    K., Chatzopoulos, S., Gerhard, O., et al

    Fritz, T. K., Chatzopoulos, S., Gerhard, O., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 44

    2016

  33. [33]

    K., Gillessen, S., Dodds-Eden, K., et al

    Fritz, T. K., Gillessen, S., Dodds-Eden, K., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 73

    2011

  34. [34]

    2020, A&A, 634, A71

    Gallego-Cano, E., Schödel, R., Nogueras-Lara, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A71

    2020

  35. [35]

    2000, ApJ, 539, L13

    Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, L13

    2000

  36. [36]

    Y ., Böker, T., Leigh, N., Lützgendorf, N., & Neumayer, N

    Georgiev, I. Y ., Böker, T., Leigh, N., Lützgendorf, N., & Neumayer, N. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2122

    2016

  37. [37]

    M., Eisenhauer, F., et al

    Gillessen, S., Plewa, P. M., Eisenhauer, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 30

    2017

  38. [38]

    A., Rejkuba, M., Minniti, D., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Rejkuba, M., Minniti, D., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, L14 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Aimar, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, L12

    2011

  39. [39]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  40. [40]

    D., Longmore, S

    Henshaw, J. D., Longmore, S. N., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2675 Hermosa Muñoz, L., Márquez, I., Cazzoli, S., Masegosa, J., & Agís-González, B. 2022, A&A, 660, A133

    2016

  41. [41]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  42. [42]

    Hussein, L

    Hussein, A., Necib, L., Kaplinghat, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14868

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    2023, A&A, 674, A70

    Ishchenko, M., Sobolenko, M., Kuvatova, D., Panamarev, T., & Berczik, P. 2023, A&A, 674, A70

    2023

  44. [44]

    Jeans, J. H. 1922, MNRAS, 82, 122

    1922

  45. [45]

    2020, DYNAMITE: DYnam- ics, Age and Metallicity Indicators Tracing Evolution, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2011.007

    Jethwa, P., Thater, S., Maindl, T., & Van de Ven, G. 2020, DYNAMITE: DYnam- ics, Age and Metallicity Indicators Tracing Evolution, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2011.007

    2020

  46. [46]

    J., et al

    Jin, Y ., Zhu, L., Long, R. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1690

    2020

  47. [47]

    J., et al

    Jin, Y ., Zhu, L., Long, R. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4753

    2019

  48. [48]

    2025, A&A, 700, A249

    Jin, Y ., Zhu, L., Tahmasebzadeh, B., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A249

    2025

  49. [49]

    Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

    2013

  50. [50]

    2026, A&A, 706, A373

    Lamprecht, J., Feldmeier-Krause, A., Lyubenova, M., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A373

    2026

  51. [51]

    Launhardt, R., Zylka, R., & Mezger, P. G. 2002, A&A, 384, 112

    2002

  52. [52]

    Lyubenova, M., van den Bosch, R. C. E., Côté, P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 3364

    2013

  53. [53]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 1166

    Magorrian, J. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1166

    2019

  54. [54]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 195

    Mehrgan, K., Thomas, J., Saglia, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 195

    2019

  55. [55]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

    1996

  56. [56]

    2020, A&A Rev., 28, 4

    Neumayer, N., Seth, A., & Böker, T. 2020, A&A Rev., 28, 4

    2020

  57. [57]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 2004

    Neureiter, B., de Nicola, S., Thomas, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2004

    2023

  58. [58]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 1437

    Neureiter, B., Thomas, J., Saglia, R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1437

    2021

  59. [59]

    D., Seth, A

    Nguyen, D. D., Seth, A. C., Neumayer, N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 118

    2018

  60. [60]

    2024, A&A, 685, A93

    Nieuwmunster, N., Schultheis, M., Sormani, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A93

    2024

  61. [61]

    T., Dong, H., et al

    Nogueras-Lara, F., Gallego-Calvente, A. T., Dong, H., et al. 2018, A&A, 610, A83

    2018

  62. [62]

    T., et al

    Nogueras-Lara, F., Schödel, R., Gallego-Calvente, A. T., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A20

    2019

  63. [63]

    2023, A&A, 671, L10

    Nogueras-Lara, F., Schultheis, M., Najarro, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, L10

    2023

  64. [64]

    M., & Stone, N

    Penoyre, Z., Rossi, E. M., & Stone, N. C. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 322

    2025

  65. [65]

    B., Hopman, C., & Alexander, T

    Perets, H. B., Hopman, C., & Alexander, T. 2007, ApJ, 656, 709 Pérez, F. & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21

    2007

  66. [66]

    G., et al

    Philipp, S., Zylka, R., Mezger, P. G., et al. 1999, A&A, 348, 768

    1999

  67. [67]

    M., Zhu, L., & van de Ven, G

    Poci, A., McDermid, R. M., Zhu, L., & van de Ven, G. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3776

    2019

  68. [68]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1621

    Portail, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., & Ness, M. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1621

    2017

  69. [69]

    K., Hempel, M., Minniti, D., et al

    Saito, R. K., Hempel, M., Minniti, D., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A107

    2012

  70. [70]

    2022, ApJ, 930, 153 Schödel, R., Merritt, D., & Eckart, A

    Santucci, G., Brough, S., van de Sande, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 153 Schödel, R., Merritt, D., & Eckart, A. 2009, A&A, 502, 91

    2022

  71. [71]

    1979, ApJ, 232, 236

    Schwarzschild, M. 1979, ApJ, 232, 236

    1979

  72. [72]

    & Graham, A

    Scott, N. & Graham, A. W. 2013, ApJ, 763, 76

    2013

  73. [73]

    C., Sanders, J

    Sormani, M. C., Sanders, J. L., Fritz, T. K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1857

    2022

  74. [74]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 861

    Tahmasebzadeh, B., Zhu, L., Shen, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 861

    2024

  75. [75]

    2025, A&A submitted

    Thater, S., Chaturvedi, A., Krajnovi´c, D., et al. 2025, A&A submitted

    2025

  76. [76]

    2023, A&A, 675, A18

    Thater, S., Lyubenova, M., Fahrion, K., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A18

    2023

  77. [77]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 3720 van den Bosch, R

    Tsatsi, A., Mastrobuono-Battisti, A., van de Ven, G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3720 van den Bosch, R. C. E. & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 1770 van den Bosch, R. C. E., van de Ven, G., Verolme, E. K., Cappellari, M., & de

    2017

  78. [78]

    Zeeuw, P. T. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 647

    2008

  79. [79]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 3174

    Vasiliev, E. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 3174

    2013

  80. [80]

    Vasiliev, E., Feldmeier-Krause, A., & Sormani, M. C. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 71

    2026

Showing first 80 references.